JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[JayUtah]

I asked if he would agree that Oswald is the only shooter for whom objective evidence is available...

Then again he states that the presence of a second shooter is fact.

This is typical conspiracy rhetoric, reminiscent of the Bellwether Fallacy. Most conspiracy theories cannot stomach the fact that the preponderance of evidence is strongly against them, therefore they have to devise a way for that evidence to be somehow irrelevant.

The boldest way is the bellwether -- some sort of smoking gun that all by itself leads you inevitably, inexorably, and undeniably to the desired conclusion. Then, armed with the "certainty" of that conclusion by that one supposedly direct and irrefutable proof, the theory turns around and circularly dismisses all the counter-evidence on the grounds that it "must" be false since it leads to the "wrong" conclusion. It further asserts that to determine how or why contrary evidence is false is a useless or academic exercise since the conclusion is foregone.

Robert's formulation of the identity of the assassin(s) is a conclusion inferred from the observational evidence he holds to fastest. The central allegation is the direction of the fatal shot. Based on his interpretation of the medical testimony, he asserts the fatal shot came from in front. Therefore, it follows that Oswald cannot have fired the fatal shot because he was in the wrong position, no matter how much evidence places him there and the fatal shot from that direction. But that's an inference, not a fact. It further follows that, the fatal shot having come from in front, the assassin had also to have been in front, no matter what absence of evidence there is for that conclusion. It is not a fact; it is an inference.

A rational approach must distill all the evidence together, understanding that in a real-world situation there may not be a perfectly consistent interpretation of all the available evidence. The parsimonious conclusion is that all the evidence together places the fatal shot from behind and Oswald as the most probable shooter of all those considered. The least painful inconsistency arises in the cherry-picked and mal-interpreted medical testimony, not the position of the fatal shooter.

 

[JayUtah]

There is hardly a single post where you have not declared "victory"

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to link to one. Please do so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is hardly a single post where you have not declared "victory"

care to quote Jay declaring himself victorious in just one post?

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is typical conspiracy rhetoric, reminiscent of the Bellwether Fallacy. Most conspiracy theories cannot stomach the fact that the preponderance of evidence is strongly against them, therefore they have to devise a way for that evidence to be somehow irrelevant.

The boldest way is the bellwether -- some sort of smoking gun that all by itself leads you inevitably, inexorably, and undeniably to the desired conclusion. Then, armed with the "certainty" of that conclusion by that one supposedly direct and irrefutable proof, the theory turns around and circularly dismisses all the counter-evidence on the grounds that it "must" be false since it leads to the "wrong" conclusion. It further asserts that to determine how or why contrary evidence is false is a useless or academic exercise since the conclusion is foregone.

Robert's formulation of the identity of the assassin(s) is a conclusion inferred from the observational evidence he holds to fastest. The central allegation is the direction of the fatal shot. Based on his interpretation of the medical testimony, he asserts the fatal shot came from in front. Therefore, it follows that Oswald cannot have fired the fatal shot because he was in the wrong position, no matter how much evidence places him there and the fatal shot from that direction. But that's an inference, not a fact. It further follows that, the fatal shot having come from in front, the assassin had also to have been in front, no matter what absence of evidence there is for that conclusion. It is not a fact; it is an inference.

A rational approach must distill all the evidence together, understanding that in a real-world situation there may not be a perfectly consistent interpretation of all the available evidence. The parsimonious conclusion is that all the evidence together places the fatal shot from behind and Oswald as the most probable shooter of all those considered. The least painful inconsistency arises in the cherry-picked and mal-interpreted medical testimony, not the position of the fatal shooter.

It seems thatt Robert labours under a far simpler failing. He simply does not seem to know the difference between subjective and objective, probability and fact.

Robert seems to think that if somebody says they saw X then X is fact.
This is not true.
It may be a fact they said X. But that is not the same thing as X being fact.
From here things grow shakier.
What they remember as they describe X may not be what Robert imagines. He, like all of us, are limited to our understanding.
Worse we are limited by expectations. Robert has firm ideas of what constitutes a large or gaping wound, blasted, blown out, compromised, etc and refuses toconsider objectively if such descriptions might be fitted to any interpretation other than his own. If forexample, a doctor may consider a bullet hole as large as a dime through which brain tissue is visible to be larger, or big, orgaping.

Through such fundemental misunderstanding of what constitutes proof and fact, conjecture becomes truth, regardless of a lack of actual proof.

 

[JTF]

Evidence VS Supposition

"None of which negates a shot from the front."

ROBERT: What shot from the front? Last time I checked, the autopsy reports, the x-rays of the president's head, the ballistics data, and even the Zapruder film prove beyond ALL doubt that the direction of the shots that hit the president were from behind. There is no tangible evidence for any shots being fired from the grassy knoll. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

 

[LSSBB]

"None of which negates a shot from the front."

ROBERT: What shot from the front? Last time I checked, the autopsy reports, the x-rays of the president's head, the ballistics data, and even the Zapruder film prove beyond ALL doubt that the direction of the shots that hit the president were from behind. There is no tangible evidence for any shots being fired from the grassy knoll. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Exactly. How can you negate that which doesn't exist?

(-1) x 0 = 0

 

[JayUtah]

There is no tangible evidence for any shots being fired from the grassy knoll.

To make matters worse, the Grassy Knoll is to the side of the motorcade route, not in front of it. In order for the fatal shot to have come from in front, the only suitable sniper nest is the overpass.

Spend five minutes in Dealey Plaza and you'll realize just how utterly ridiculous it is to suppose that the President had been shot either from the overpass or from the grassy knoll and for no one to have seen the shooter.

 

[vtbub]

To make matters worse, the Grassy Knoll is to the side of the motorcade route, not in front of it. In order for the fatal shot to have come from in front, the only suitable sniper nest is the overpass.

Spend five minutes in Dealey Plaza and you'll realize just how utterly ridiculous it is to suppose that the President had been shot either from the overpass or from the grassy knoll and for no one to have seen the shooter.

The hardest part to believe is that it took three shots to hit JFK in the head. We are talking a shot that is less than a football field in distance.

Any other angle and there is a huge chance Jackie and Nellie Connally get hit.

Jay,

Where do you think the first shot hit?

 

[JayUtah]

The hardest part to believe is that it took three shots to hit JFK in the head. We are talking a shot that is less than a football field in distance.

Actually yes, that's the common first impression upon arriving in Dealey Plaza: how short the distances involved are. People imagine Oswald's shot to be a long-distance sniper's shot. It's not. It's basically across a street.

Where do you think the first shot hit?

Don't have the faintest clue.

 

[JTF]

First Shot

By most accounts, the direction of the first shot was altered when it hit a portion of tree that came into Oswald's view when he squeezed off the first round. The deflected round hit a curbside and a piece of the curb hit the cheek of a spectator. One of my favorite statements about the number and accuracy of the shots comes from Vincent Bugliosi. In several interviews, he expressed the ridiculous scenario put forth by Oliver Stone that one of several world class hitmen would completely miss a slow moving vehicle at such a short distance.

 

[vtbub]

One of the few mysteries left in the shooting, the Teague shot.

 

[Robert Prey]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to link to one. Please do so.

I never insult people or declare victory with words like "you suck" . But that's one of your more recent "victory" declarations. And you,an
academic? Shame.

 

[Robert Prey]

This is typical conspiracy rhetoric, reminiscent of the Bellwether Fallacy. Most conspiracy theories cannot stomach the fact that the preponderance of evidence is strongly against them, therefore they have to devise a way for that evidence to be somehow irrelevant.

The boldest way is the bellwether -- some sort of smoking gun that all by itself leads you inevitably, inexorably, and undeniably to the desired conclusion. Then, armed with the "certainty" of that conclusion by that one supposedly direct and irrefutable proof, the theory turns around and circularly dismisses all the counter-evidence on the grounds that it "must" be false since it leads to the "wrong" conclusion. It further asserts that to determine how or why contrary evidence is false is a useless or academic exercise since the conclusion is foregone.

Robert's formulation of the identity of the assassin(s) is a conclusion inferred from the observational evidence he holds to fastest. The central allegation is the direction of the fatal shot. Based on his interpretation of the medical testimony, he asserts the fatal shot came from in front. Therefore, it follows that Oswald cannot have fired the fatal shot because he was in the wrong position, no matter how much evidence places him there and the fatal shot from that direction. But that's an inference, not a fact. It further follows that, the fatal shot having come from in front, the assassin had also to have been in front, no matter what absence of evidence there is for that conclusion. It is not a fact; it is an inference.

A rational approach must distill all the evidence together, understanding that in a real-world situation there may not be a perfectly consistent interpretation of all the available evidence. The parsimonious conclusion is that all the evidence together places the fatal shot from behind and Oswald as the most probable shooter of all those considered. The least painful inconsistency arises in the cherry-picked and mal-interpreted medical testimony, not the position of the fatal shooter.

If my medical witness statements are "cherry picked" then where are the other cherries????? Specifically, those that would affirm the head wounds as depicted in the fictional Rydberg drawing used to dupe the Warren Commission. Still waiting for those other un-picked cherries.

(Crickets still chirping)

 

[Robert Prey]

"None of which negates a shot from the front."

ROBERT: What shot from the front? Last time I checked, the autopsy reports, the x-rays of the president's head, the ballistics data, and even the Zapruder film prove beyond ALL doubt that the direction of the shots that hit the president were from behind. There is no tangible evidence for any shots being fired from the grassy knoll. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Except for all of the above.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, I make no attempt to convince. That is impossible with those who refuse to be convinced. I only point out overwhelming evidence for conspiracy. Heads in sand will always remain there regardless.

Yes you do. You just suck at it.

Actual quotes.

I never insult people or declare victory with words like "you suck" .

Egregious cherry picking. Actual quote above. You couldn't even bring yourself to give an accurate quote. How lame is that? Why do you lie about such simply verifiable things?

But that's one of your more recent "victory" declarations. And you,an
academic? Shame.

Feel free to identify any such victory claims. But you won't.

 

[JayUtah]

But that's one of your more recent "victory" declarations.

Nonsense. By that definition any disputation of your statements would be a "declaration of victory." Indeed by that definition every single-word "Baloney" response from you would also be a "declaration of victory." Nice try, but you don't get to try to dictate my intent back to me in order to save you from yet another dishonest claim.

And you an academic?

I'm not an academic. I have gone to college, yes, to train for my profession, but I am not an academic. But if I were, I wouldn't consider that a source of shame. Why do you keep brandishing this label as if it were an insult?

Once again you've been caught making a personal attack you cannot substantiate, and in response you simply make another personal attack. I suspect this will be a short fringe reset if you're already trying to shame your critics from catching you in lies.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If my medical witness statements are "cherry picked" then where are the other cherries????? Specifically, those that would affirm the head wounds as depicted in the fictional Rydberg drawing used to dupe the Warren Commission. Still waiting for those other un-picked cherries.

(Crickets still chirping)

This has been discussed at length. The findings of the autopsy have been discussed at length. How your own quotes are compatible with the drawings have been dicussed at length. Nobody feels a need to repeat themselves.


By the way does your "Crickets chirping" statement not smack of declaring victory?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Except for all of the above.

So the tangible evidence for the presence of a second shooter is the same evidence you have previously complained was faked, whitewash, swapped, alttered, too blurry to be of use,or otherwise invalid?

And also the evidence that can only affirm one shooter, from the direction of the TSBD?

How can this work?

Lets pre-empt the most likely claims:

"X was faked ergo there is a second shooter or a different shooter." Nope, if you have evidence X is faked you do not have evidence of an alternate conclusion, only a viability of other options. Removing X as valid is not the same as replacing X with your own narrative.

"X was replaced, ergo the ORIGINAL X wouldhave shown THIS!" Nope. Unless you have a far more powerful crystal ball than me stating, suggesting, or proving one piece ofevidence was substituted for another is not the same as proving what the original said. Proving Jed is not wearing blue gloves does not equate to Jed wearing yellow gloves.

"The jet effect!" Provably wrong, with any understanding of ballistics. Even if we assume it were possible we then have to reconcile how much blood, bone and tissue can pass through a small entry wound and what arc of directions it can travel in and reconcile those limitations of reality with the cloud of ejecta in the film that proves the ersatz effect.

"The Z film shows a frangible round striking the skull." Which would make your version of what forty medical witnesses saw wrong, ass you apparently claim they did not notice a craterous entry wound on the front of the skull where body mass was ejected in such a broad arc of trajectories, no does the Z film show any ejecta from an exit wound. Following this supposition the individual fragments of bullet could concievably have caused an explosive entry, but at the cost of momentum and energy. You could even pruport that explains the scattering of fragments in the X-rays. But the price of this supposition is to concede that Z film is indeed unaltered, to concede your interpretation of medical testimony so far has been wrong and even that the autopsy photographs and WC illustrations are reasonably accurate but the wrong conclusions have been drawn. I.e. the explosive wound was misidentified as an exit wound instead of an entry wound.

Unfortunately Robert has made the frangible bullet claim before and made no attempt to reconcile the conflicts of evidence and logic this creates with his other claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I never insult people

Other than to tell them their head is in the sand, to call them "deep thinkers" or "brainwashed", to suggest they are cowards, in retreat, or acking their scholary ability?

Have you, for example, read your first post on page 1 of this thread and wondered if there is anything in there in your stated expectations that openly insults others through your expectations?

I thought you were against false witness because it upset some deity or other?

 

[Robert Prey]

So the tangible evidence for the presence of a second shooter is the same evidence you have previously complained was faked, whitewash, swapped, alttered, too blurry to be of use,or otherwise invalid?

And also the evidence that can only affirm one shooter, from the direction of the TSBD?

How can this work?

Lets pre-empt the most likely claims:

"X was faked ergo there is a second shooter or a different shooter." Nope, if you have evidence X is faked you do not have evidence of an alternate conclusion, only a viability of other options. Removing X as valid is not the same as replacing X with your own narrative.

"X was replaced, ergo the ORIGINAL X wouldhave shown THIS!" Nope. Unless you have a far more powerful crystal ball than me stating, suggesting, or proving one piece ofevidence was substituted for another is not the same as proving what the original said. Proving Jed is not wearing blue gloves does not equate to Jed wearing yellow gloves.

"The jet effect!" Provably wrong, with any understanding of ballistics. Even if we assume it were possible we then have to reconcile how much blood, bone and tissue can pass through a small entry wound and what arc of directions it can travel in and reconcile those limitations of reality with the cloud of ejecta in the film that proves the ersatz effect.

"The Z film shows a frangible round striking the skull." Which would make your version of what forty medical witnesses saw wrong, ass you apparently claim they did not notice a craterous entry wound on the front of the skull where body mass was ejected in such a broad arc of trajectories, no does the Z film show any ejecta from an exit wound. Following this supposition the individual fragments of bullet could concievably have caused an explosive entry, but at the cost of momentum and energy. You could even pruport that explains the scattering of fragments in the X-rays. But the price of this supposition is to concede that Z film is indeed unaltered, to concede your interpretation of medical testimony so far has been wrong and even that the autopsy photographs and WC illustrations are reasonably accurate but the wrong conclusions have been drawn. I.e. the explosive wound was misidentified as an exit wound instead of an entry wound.

Unfortunately Robert has made the frangible bullet claim before and made no attempt to reconcile the conflicts of evidence and logic this creates with his other claims.

Don't fillibuster. Provide the medical witnesses that affirm the fictional Rydberg drawings or admit you have none.

(Crickets still chirping)